9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 239 - AT - Income TaxOutstanding fees for professional services taxable in the hand of assessee? - rectification petition afresh in contradiction to provisions of section 143(1) - Whether the AO was competent u/s 154 to rectify the mistake - HELD THAT - The definition in section 154(2)(b) clearly laid down that the Assessing Officer is well-competent to rectify any mistake, which is brought to its notice by the assessee also and, therefore, the observation of Assessing Officer and the ld. D.R., that such mistake committed by the assessee could be rectified vide revised return only, does not stand at all. As the per provision laid down in section 154(2)(b) clearly suggests the jurisdiction is available to the Assessing Officer u/s 154, in case the mistake is brought to his notice by the assessee also. In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT and Calcutta High Court in case of Premier Polymers (P.) Ltd. 1990 (1) TMI 310 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , it is apparently clear that the above amount received by the assessee prior to his elevation could not be taxed and, therefore, the assessee has rightly moved a petition u/s 154 to rectify the intimation sent by Assessing Officer, and the Assessing Officer was well-competent to rectify such intimation in view of the provision as laid down in sections 143(1)(ii) and 154(2)(b) of the Act and in view of the decision by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Bhaskar Mitter 1994 (12) TMI 327 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA and in case of Premier Polymers (P.) Ltd. We, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the above two issues has passed a well reasoned and speaking order which does not call for any interference from our side. We, therefore, uphold the same and reject the grounds raised by the revenue. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of Court judgment as part of records for section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the rectification petition afresh in contradiction to section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Acceptance of Court Judgment as Part of Records for Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by accepting a court judgment as part of records for the purpose of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee received Rs. 3,36,575 as outstanding fees for professional services rendered before his elevation to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. This amount was included in his return for the assessment year 1999-2000 under "Income from other sources," which was processed under section 143(1)(a). The assessee later requested rectification under section 154, citing the judgment in CIT v. Justice R.M. Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86, which held that such income could not be taxed. The Assessing Officer rejected this application, stating that the fees were taxable under section 56 and that rectification under section 154 was not possible as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165. The CIT(A), however, observed that the fees were not taxable under sections 28, 56, or 176(4) and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rectification petition. Issue 2: Direction to Assessing Officer to Consider Rectification Petition Afresh The revenue also argued that the CIT(A) erred by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the rectification petition afresh, contradicting section 143(1). The Departmental Representative defended the Assessing Officer's decision, asserting that the assessee should have filed a revised return instead of seeking rectification under section 154. The DR emphasized that section 154 is for rectifying mistakes and cannot be invoked for debatable issues, citing T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. The assessee's counsel argued that the income was not taxable under sections 28 or 56 based on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Justice R.M. Datta and the Supreme Court's ruling in Nalinikant Ambalal Modi v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428. The counsel also cited CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter [1994] 73 Taxman 437, which held that the Assessing Officer cannot assess an amount not taxable by law, even if shown by the assessee. Additionally, the counsel referenced section 143(1)(ii) and section 154(2)(b), which empower the Assessing Officer to rectify mistakes brought to notice by the assessee. Tribunal's Findings: Taxability of the Receipt: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the receipt was not taxable under sections 28, 56, or 176(4) based on the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Justice R.M. Datta. The Tribunal noted that the High Court followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Nalinikant Ambalal Modi, which held that such receipts, being fruits of professional activity, were not taxable if the profession was not carried on in the accounting year. Jurisdiction under Section 154: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer was competent to rectify the mistake under section 154(2)(b), which allows rectification of mistakes brought to notice by the assessee. The Tribunal also referenced section 143(1)(ii), which mandates the Assessing Officer to grant refunds based on the return, implying the power to rectify intimation. The Tribunal cited Premier Polymers (P.) Ltd., which established that obvious legal mistakes could be rectified under section 154. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) passed a well-reasoned order, correctly holding that the receipt was not taxable and that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under section 154. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
|
